HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN Lebenswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwissenschaften
“Challenges to the establishment of CCAMLR Marine Protected Areas (MPA): A stakeholder analysis of interests and positions”
Master-Arbeit im Studiengang: Integrated Natural Resource Management
vorgelegt von: Lahl, Rebecca
Erstbetreuer: Prof. Dr. Müller, Klaus
Institution: Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwissenschaften,
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Fachgebiet: Ökonomie und Politik ländlicher Räume
Zweitbetreuer: Prof. Dr. Brey, Thomas Institution: Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven
Fachgebiet: Biosciences and Functional Ecology Berlin, 22.10.2015
Summary
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are used in spatial management for fisheries and conservation purpose. Since the alarming reports on the status of the world’s oceans, MPAs have been on the international agenda for over a decade as they promise various ecological and
socioeconomic benefits. The CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) is the fisheries management regime in the Southern Ocean that is committed to establishing MPAs. Member states have however repeatedly failed to reach consensus on the proposals for MPA establishment in the Southern Ocean. Two MPA
proposals have recurrently been tabled and at least two other proposals are being planned and will be subject of the debate in the coming negotiations. The argument of MPAs in the
Southern Ocean consumes a lot of time and vigor while defining the political agenda of CCAMLR’s everyday business.
This thesis explores the causes of the absence of consensus on MPA establishment in the Southern Ocean by looking at the diverging interests and positions of the CCAMLR member states on MPAs in general and on the tabled MPA proposals. This research realizes a critical three step stakeholder analysis (henceforth SHA) approach. The three steps are the
identification of stakeholders by predefined criteria, identification and categorization of stakeholder positions and interests, and investigation of relationships by means of an actor- linkage matrix. The data for the SHA are acquired by analysis of socio-economic interest data and a literature based content analysis of annual Commission reports and media reports using the MAXQDA software. Based on SHA results the author is able to identify challenges to the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs. The conflict situation between members can be assessed.
By examination of arguments made in the MPA discourse the author estimates the severity of the identified barriers to MPA establishment. This research ultimately discusses ideas to overcome the identified challenges to find consensus and to manage potential and manifested conflicts effectively.
In the first step of the SHA, member states are identified as key stakeholder based on the criteria of legitimacy for decision-making. Categorization shows that generally all
stakeholders have a high interest in marine Antarctic research, all proponents have a high interest in conservation, and almost all unsupportive stakeholders have a high interest in fisheries. Yet, there are several member states that strive for both conservation/MPAs and fishing. According to the results, Russia, China, and Ukraine are clearly positioned against MPAs in general. Japan does not generally refuse the establishment but has repeatedly
criticized the tabled proposals. Korea appears very supportive of the idea of MPAs, yet Korea, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay have not clearly stated support of both or one of the tabled
proposals. The content analysis showed that positions of several Member States altered, and that the number of actors in favor of MPAs increased in the last five years. Investigation of relationships by means of the actor-linkage matrix shows conflict potential among members.
A manifested conflict is recorded among MPA proponents and the above identified unsupportive stakeholders. A conflict is only potential among future proponents and
unsupportive stakeholders. Challenges to MPA establishment are summarized in the following clusters: (1) Concerns on MPAs necessity, effectiveness and enforceability, (2) different interpretations of CCAMLR’s legal mandate and the convention text, (3) the need to balance different interests, (4) the fear of injustice in access rights, (5) and strained relationships by lacking trust and collaboration ultimately resulting in a momentum that does not allow the MPA establishment.
It is concluded that compromises of the negotiating parties to find common ground is
necessary as it has to be an unanimous decision. Compromise most likely includes concession by at least one group of proponents and unsupportive stakeholders. Assessment encourages the assumption that involvement of unsupportive stakeholders in the planning of MPAs is indispensable. A transparent and proactive planning can prevent the manifestation of conflicts.
Results also suggest that finding consensus on any CCAMLR MPA is currently impeded by a weak momentum that would require a shift of both the patterns of interaction and overcoming the dichotomy of interests by long-term policy-oriented learning. This study reveals both weaknesses and advantages of the chosen approach to research. It is suitable to structure the mélange of conflicting interests and positions in a highly dynamic and complex system.
However, the use for formulating exact recommendations for specific actions is limited.
Content
Tables... V Figures ... V List of Abbreviations ... VII
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1. Background ... 1
1.2. Research aims and research question ... 2
1.3. Structure of the thesis ... 4
2. Research object background ... 4
2.1. Marine Protected Areas ... 4
2.2. The Antarctic Treaty ... 8
2.3. CCAMLR ... 8
2.4. Exploitation of marine living resources in the Antarctic ... 13
2.5. Established and proposed CCAMLR MPAs ... 15
2.5.1. South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf (SOISS) MPA... 20
2.5.2. East Antarctic Representative System (EARS) of MPAs ... 22
2.5.3. Ross Sea (RS) MPA... 23
2.5.4. Weddell Sea (WS) MPA ... 26
2.5.5. Other MPA planning domains ... 31
3. Theory of stakeholder analysis ... 32
3.1. Defining the term stakeholders... 32
3.2. Stakeholder theory and rationale ... 33
3.3. Stakeholder analysis: typology of methods ... 36
3.3.1. Stakeholder identification ... 37
3.3.2. Stakeholder categorization ... 38
3.3.3. Investigating stakeholder relationships ... 39
3.4. SHA strengths and weaknesses ... 40
4. Methods ... 43
4.1. Summary of definitions ... 43
4.2. Participatory observation ... 44
4.3. Stakeholder analysis ... 46
4.4. Identification ... 46
4.5. Categorization ... 46
4.5.1. Content analysis by means of MAXQDA ... 47
4.5.2. Data analysis of socio-economic interest data ... 52
4.6. Investigating relationships ... 52
5. Results of stakeholder identification ... 54
6. Results of stakeholder categorization ... 56
6.1. Content analysis ... 56
6.1.1. Results from analysis of the Commission reports ... 56
6.1.2. Results from media analysis ... 67
6.1.3. Comparison of results ... 73
6.2. Interest data analysis ... 75
6.2.1. MPA and conservation interests ... 75
6.2.2. Fisheries and conservation: Interest representation in delegations ... 76
6.2.3. Interest in marine living resources ... 77
6.2.4. Interest in research activity and leadership ... 81
6.2.5. Logistical operations ... 84
6.2.6. Claims and geopolitical interest ... 86
6.2.7. Interest in tourism ... 87
6.2.8. Preliminary conclusion ... 87
6.3. Interest-Position-Grid ... 88
6.4. Stakeholder table ... 89
7. Results of investigating relationships ... 91
8. Discussion ... 93
8.1. Interpretation of SHA results: Challenges to MPA establishment ... 93
8.2. Overcome barriers to MPA establishment ... 99
8.3. The WS MPA proposal ... 102
8.4. Comparison with other research ... 103
8.5. Evaluation of used methods ... 108
9. Conclusion ... 109
10. Reference ... 111
Appendix ... 115
Tables
Table 1 Decisions and activities under CCAMLR since 2002. ... 15
Table 2 Different approaches to stakeholder analysis ... 36
Table 3 Time frame of selected meetings for participative observation ... 45
Table 4 Coding agenda of deductive categories of annual Commission reports.. ... 49
Table 5 Coding agenda of deductive categories for media content analysis ... 50
Table 6 Interest data considered in categorization process to display national interest ... 52
Table 7 Results of content analysis of stakeholder’s positions ... 57
Table 8 Results from content analysis of stakeholder’s motivation ... 59
Table 9 Results from content analysis of stakeholder’s interest in the design of MPAs ... 61
Table 10 Results from content analysis of stakeholder’s concerns ... 62
Table 11 Number of advisors from commercial and NGO sector ... 77
Table 12 Member’s fishing interest in the planning areas ... 78
Table 13 CCAMLR targeted species and CCAMLR Subareas and Divisions fished ... 80
Table 14 Stakeholder table of CCAMLR member states ... 90
Table 15 Media sources for MAXQDA content analysis. ... 115
Figures Figure 1 Boundaries of the statistical reporting areas under CCAMLR ... 9
Figure 2 CCAMLR’s institutional bodies ... 11
Figure 3 Map indicating the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for toothfish ... 14
Figure 4 CCAMLR MPA planning domains. ... 16
Figure 5 CCAMLR priority areas for marine protected areas (MPAs) identification ... 16
Figure 6 Established and proposed MPAs in 2012. ... 18
Figure 7 Infographic demonstrating the changes made in the EARS MPA and RS MPA ... 19
Figure 8 Spatial boundaries of the SOISS MPA ... 21
Figure 9 Output from MARXAN analysis for SOISS MPA. ... 21
Figure 10 Map of the proposed East Antarctic Marine Protected Area as proposed in 2014. . 22
Figure 11 MPA scenarios for a Ross Sea MPA by the United States and New Zealand ... 23
Figure 12 Boundaries of the RS MPA in 2012 and 2013-SM and in 2013 and 2014………...25
Figure 13 Planning area for the evaluation of a WS MPA ... 26
Figure 14 WS MPA Scenarios resulting from MARXAN Analyses ... 27
Figure 15 Left: Exploratory fishery of Dissostichus spp. in the WS MPA planning area. Map of the research stations and facilities bordering the WS MPA planning area. ... 30
Figure 16 Schematic presentation of rationale, typology and methods for SHA ... 35
Figure 17 Stakeholder typology for identification and prioritization ... 37
Figure 18 Interest-Influence Matrix ... 38
Figure 19 Research design, displaying phases of research and the SHA framework. ... 43
Figure 20 Program interface in MAXQDA within coding operation. ... 51
Figure 21 Four leveled stakeholder community under CCAMLR. ... 54
Figure 22 Number of times media discussed opposition by particular member states. ... 68
Figure 23 Results from MAXQDA media content analysis of challenges ... 69
Figure 24 Results from MAXQDA media content analysis on solutions to challenges ... 71
Figure 25 AOA Scoreboard in October 2014 in front of the CCAMLR Headquarters ... 72
Figure 26 Position map of CCAMLR member states on MPAs ... 74
Figure 27 Percentage of territorial waters designated MPA. ... 75
Figure 28 Proportion of catch (combined) per county from 2008 to 2012. Proportion of the financial value gained per country from 2008 to 2012. ... 78
Figure 29 Comparative Antarctic spend (million US Dollar) ... 81
Figure 30 Total amount of WPs produced by Consultative Parties to the AT ... 82
Figure 31 Number of working papers and number of scientific publications on Antarctic topics by ATCPs (1992-2010) ... 83
Figure 32 Map of research stations in Antarctica ... 85
Figure 33 Map of territorial claims in the Antarctic including research stations. ... 86
Figure 34 Major seaborne and airborne tourist routes to Antarctica ... 86
Figure 35 Interest-Position-Grid for categorization of all member states. ... 89
Figure 36 Actor-linkage matrix on relationship in the CCAMLR MPA negotiations.. ... 91
Figure 37 Venn diagram of roles (Make, Help, Allow, None, Anti) of member states ... 91
Figure 38 Matrix of results from media content analysis. ... 116
Figure 39 Matrix of results from content analysis of Commission reports ... 116
List of Abbreviations AOA Antarctic Ocean Alliance
ARK Association of Responsible Krill ASOC Antarctic and Southern Ocean
Coalition
AT Antarctic Treaty
ATCM Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
ATCP Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties
ATS Antarctic Treaty System AWI Alfred Wegener Institute BAS best available science
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCAMLR Commission or Convention on
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
CCAS Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals
CM Conservation Measures
COLTO Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators
COP Conference of the Parties CP Consultative Party
EARS MPA East Antarctic Representative System of MPAs
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EU European Union
GPZ General Protection Zone HS MPA High Seas MPA
IAATO International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators
IMO International Maritime Organization IP Information Paper
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fihsing)
IWC International Whaling Commission MPA Marine Protected Area
NGO Nongovernmental Organizations NZ New Zealand
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North- East Atlantic
R&M Research and Monitoring Plan RFMO Regional Fisheries Management
Organization RS Ross Sea
SC Scientific Committee
SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
SCP Systematic Conservation Planning SHA Stakeholder Analysis
SM Special (intercessional) Meeting SNA Social Network Analysis
SOISS MPA South Ornkey Southern Shelf MPA
SPZ Spawning Protection Zone SRZ Special Research Zone
SSMU Small Scale Management Unit SSRU Small-Scale Research Unit TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNCSD United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
US United States (of America) WG Working Group
WG-EMM WG on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management
WG-FSA WG on Fish Stock Assessment WP Working Paper
WS Workshop
WS MPA Weddell Sea MPA
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
1. Introduction 1.1. Background
Coastal and marine areas are sensible spaces that offer various benefits to living organisms including humans. It is a fact, that marine ecosystem provide us with services such as sources of food and the regulation of climate. They are however increasingly affected by
anthropogenically induced change such as pollution, fishing, and climate change associated effects such as the distortion of ocean chemistry. The global community has made several commitments to establish protected areas especially in the marine environment due to the various benefits that they promise to all lifeforms. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have the potential to secure the status quo of marine ecosystems impeding further ecological
deterioration by interference. Ideally MPAs reduce present adverse effects on marine ecosystems and their users. In the best case, MPAs improve natural habitats and alleviate resource-use conflicts. If they are well planned and managed they provide benefits for conservation while managing fisheries increasing local added value and enhancing food security. Hence, MPAs are tools to manage marine resources for conservation purpose while often aiming to attend fishing interest also. However, MPAs are attributed a certain status of protection which restricts certain human activities. Such restrictions can potentially lead to conflicts among actors such as planners and users. The planning and decision-making of MPAs thus often has to balance conflicting views.
The Southern Ocean is an exceptional example of governance on international level. It is based on an international commitment to cooperatively manage a vast area devoted to peace and science1. The Antarctic community represented by the ATS (Antarctic Treaty System) committed to designate MPAs in Antarctic waters driven by international agenda. CCAMLR (Commission or optionally Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) operates within the ATS as a framework convention on fisheries management2. Though being primarily responsible for fisheries management, CCAMLR has wider
responsibility for the protection of marine Antarctic ecosystems and has been commissioned to plan, establish and manage MPAs in the Southern Ocean. The lead for planning MPAs in the Convention Area was taken by individual CCAMLR member states. So far, only one MPA has been decided upon by consensus (South Orkney Southern Shelf MPA in 2009), one has
1 Article 2, Environmental Protocol
2 https://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/convention-area (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
been fully laid aside (Antarctic Peninsula Ice Shelves MPA, which has become a Special Area for Scientific Research), and two have been repeatedly negotiated in at least four meetings of the CAMLR Commission or the Scientific Committee (SC). MPAs have been proposed by the US and New Zealand in the Ross Sea (RS MPA) and in the form of a Representative System of MPAs in the East Antarctic (EARS MPA) by Australia, France and the EU. 2012, Germany has declared its willingness to take the lead in the development of an MPA in the Weddell Sea (WS MPA). Chile and Argentina are currently planning an MPA in planning domain 13 on the Western part of the Antarctic Peninsula adjacent to the WS MPA planning area (see Figure 5 for CCAMLR planning domains).
The CAMLR Commission is recognized for scientific based decision making and as a pioneer organization in conservation due to a well implemented ecosystem-based management
approach. Designating MPAs in the Antarctic that exceed the size of many of its member states would also acknowledge CCAMLR’s position as exemplary international regime. The media and member states have voiced concerns on serious consequences of failure for CCAMLR’s reputation. The situation appears to be a hurting stalemate and a test to international cooperation. Fulfilling commitments made seems to progress slowly if not stagnating. Current and future conservation efforts in the form of MPAs in the Antarctic and other areas beyond national jurisdiction may be affected by negotiation outcomes. Ultimately, all parties involved are troubled by a loss of time and vigor by this timely negotiation conflict.
It appears that interests are conflicting and positions hardened, which has caused repeated failure of finding consensus on pending CCAMLR MPA proposals.
1.2. Research aims and research question
This thesis aims to explore the general challenges and causing factors for conflict by looking at differing positions, interest and charged relationships. Against the given background this research would serve several aims. This study may contribute to a general discussion before plans of any MPA are finalized. It may provide substance on the involvement of disregarded but relevant stakeholder interest whether, which may ultimately enhance communication between stakeholders. It can increase the degree to which stakeholders´ expectations are satisfied, and thus increase democratic and legitimized decision-making. Results from this analysis could potentially be further used in a profound conflict assessment, conflict
3 SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/20, http://www.ccamlr.org/en/sc-camlr-xxxiii (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
management or for strategy building. Both, advisors, potential mediators, scientists and policy-makers benefit from an analysis of interests, positions and the assessment of the conflict potential.
In light of the described background and research aims a major research question arises: Why has the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs repeatedly failed, despite international commitments and concessions made? What are challenges to the planning, negotiation, decision-making process under CCAMLR that are caused by conflicting stakeholder interests?
Subsequently the research answers the following questions in the following order:
o Who are the stakeholders involved in the MPA designation process? Who are key
stakeholders? How do they differ in terms of sector, action-level and option to participate in the planning and decision-making processes?
o What are interests and positions of the different stakeholder on MPAs in general and on the pending proposals?
o How are stakeholder positions, challenges to the establishment of MPAs and solutions to these challenges depicted in the media?
o How can stakeholders be categorized in term of interests, position, and relationships?
o What are options to manage key stakeholders based on the potential for conflict and threat to the establishment of MPAs? How can conflict potential in future negotiations be
reduced? Have lessons been learned from other pending CCAMLR MPA proposals in the planning of the WS MPA? What are the chances to find agreement in the coming
negotiations?
o Is SHA a useful instrument for analyzing the conflict situation in international
negotiations on MPAs and for finding solutions to challenges that MPA establishment faces?
Special focus in this thesis is placed on the WS MPA due to the fact that the author has spent substantial time in actively participating in the technical and political planning process of the WS MPA in a period of almost two years observing and participating in several meetings.
1.3. Structure of the thesis
o Chapter two displays the background on MPAs as a policy tool, the management regime and the different CCAMLR MPA proposals, with special emphasis on the WS MPA. The chapter increases understanding of the stakeholder community and to better differentiate between positions taken on individual proposals.
o Chapter three provides a detailed account of the conceptual background providing theory taken largely from social sciences on stakeholder analysis. It discusses strengths and weaknesses and serves the criteria to answer the overarching research question und subsidiary research questions in the discussion.
o In chapter four, the chosen research design and applied methods most appropriate to answer the research question are delineated. Specific limitations to the research are discussed.
o Chapter five, six and seven display the results from the SHA partitioned in the processes
‘identification’, ‘categorization’ and ‘investigation of stakeholder relationships’.
o In Chapter eight results from the SHA are being discussed, the conflict is described in more detail, options to overcome challenges are assessed, and the potential for conflict to the WS MPA proposal is discussed.
o In Chapter nine the research is critically examined, results from other studies are compared and the chosen methods are discussed in terms of their appropriateness.
o In Chapter ten conclusions are drawn from the research.
2. Research object background4 2.1. Marine Protected Areas
Protection of certain areas for the use of resources or as sacred sites has a long tradition and has been practiced for over 2000 years. The modern concept of protected areas has been practiced since the nineteenth century and has spread since. MPAs are defined by IUCN as
’Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other
effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment’ (Kelleher und Kenchington 1992). MPAs are coastal or marine areas where activities like fishing, research or passage can
4 This chapter is largely consistent with the work carried out in a student research project on the planning of CCAMLR MPAs titled ‘Marine Protected Area (MPA) planning under CCAMLR – An analysis of practical and methodical difficulties in the planning of CCAMLR MPAs and Systematic Conservation Planning’
be restricted. Each MPA is managed under a different set of rules, which are chosen according to the overall objective of the area. The establishment of MPAs has two main objectives:
(1) counteracting the overfishing of commercial species (fish, invertebrates) or rebuilding overfished stocks, and (2) preventing the degradation of used ecosystems by humans or restoration of already degraded ecosystems and preservation (Arntz and Laudien 2010;
Groves 2003). Or more precisely, MPAs are for conservation or fishery management purpose.
Moreover, MPAs contribute to “sustaining ecosystem services, preserving cultural and spiritual values, and providing places for research and education” (Leslie 2005:1702).
Compared to terrestrial reserves, MPAs are characterized by less discrete boundaries, usually less frequent anthropogenic interaction, relative openness, variability and interconnectedness to their environment and its forces such as tides, circulation patterns, and heavy intervention by fishing activities. High connectivity causes MPAs to be very susceptible to anthropogenic induced change which does not only affect the surface but a three-dimensional space. Hence, ecology and management is fundamentally different and protected areas are not comparable with terrestrial systems. But also MPAs are highly incomparable with each other as the planning and management practices differ substantially: a multitude of factors shape each biological, economic and socio-political context. Management factors like the overall strategies and the level of restriction or protection, but also the need and the supply for management capabilities, involvement of legal instruments and stakeholders, and financial means in particular may differ from area to area. In the end each MPA and the associated processes of planning, decision-making and implementation are unique and based on the numerous singularities.
Literature describes several benefits of MPAs, such as effective conservation of endangered species, a general increase in biomass, population densities, organism size and diversity (e.g.
Gell and Roberts 2003; Lester et al. 2009; Stobart et al. 2009, McCook et al. 2010). Authors suggest that MPAs can be used as a fishery management tool for increasing spill-over effects into fishing grounds (Ward et al. 2001; Toropova et al. 2010:18). Yet, academics have
published contrasting examples: highly mobile species may be depleted despite MPA establishment (Halpern and Warner 2003), fishing effort may shift spatially and enhance depletion elsewhere (Hilborn et al. 2006), and the effect on fisheries that are not overfished or well-regulated has been described as little or non-existent (Halpern and Warner 2003). Agardy et al. (2011) warns of a “blind faith in the ability of MPAs to counteract loss of biodiversity”.
The authors suggest shortcomings such as (1) the size of MPAs would be often too small to be effective – the scale is not matched to issue and context, (2) fishing can be displaced into other areas and similar disrupting effects may appear, (3) MPAs may create an illusion of protection through a new label, (4) poor planning is often comprising design flaws such as the protection of ‘wrong’ habitats, and poor management often induces failure, (5) MPAs fail easily due to unprotected surrounding and environmental degradation.
Central to this debate is the MPA efficacy – the ability to reach the MPA objectives due to effective implementation of conservation measures (see for example Kleiman et al. 2000;
Pomeroy et al. 2005; Himes 2007). Objectives have often not been met because expectations on benefits have been too high and costs through resource restrictions and impact on people are usually underestimated. Many MPAs lack provisions, regulations, funding, community support, stakeholder participation, and enforcement of regulations (Kelleher et al. 1995). Poor planning that lacks clear objectives and a scientific basis is the major point of being inefficient (Lundquist and Granek 2005). MPAs are only efficient when functioning in a network and a broader ecosystem-based management approach (Toropova et al. 2010: 69; Allison et al.
1998). Inefficient protected areas are also known as ‘Paper Parks, because they only exist on paper but management of the area is dysfunctional.
Despite the challenges that planning, implementation and enforcement of MPAs pose, they have been globally successful in a variety of cases. The recognition and the use of these tools have increased over the last decades. The world community has decided to add the vision of increasing the coverage of marine areas under protection on the political agenda. In 2002, there has been a global commitment to create a representative network of MPAs by 2012 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). In 2010 the COP of the CBD adopted the Aichi Targets which included the establishment of 10% of coastal and marine protected areas worldwide by 2020. In 2012, this goal was reaffirmed at Rio+20 UNCSD.
CCAMLR agreed to join this movement to develop a global network of MPAs by 20125.
Modern MPA design is based on ecological principles and theories such as biogeographical theory (MacArthur 1967) which “tells us that bigger reserves are better, the closer they are the better, the more circular the better, and that reserves should be linked by habitat
5 CCAMLR, XXVIII, para 7.19
corridors” (Margules and Pressey 2000:247). Spatial autecological requirements also need to find consideration in the planning of MPAs: one species may have different requirements for space within its life cycle. Other considerations for reserve selection include population dynamics, source-pool effects and source-sink population structures that need to be accounted for in spatial planning (ibid.). Several authors suggest that larger reserves are generally better than small ones especially as they account for uncertainty (e.g. MacArthur 1967; McClanahan and Mangi 2000; Neigel 2003). Methods for site selection range from simple more basic methods to structured approaches such as Systematic Conservation Planning – SCP (Margules and Pressey 2000) that also consider the above described ecological principles and criteria for identifying sites for MPAs. Systematic methods increasingly gain importance and are seen to have “real benefits in guiding effective conservation investments” (Pressey and Bottrill 2009:264). Systematic concepts are science-based: certain areas will be included in the MPA because acquired data on the occurrence of representatives suggest that inclusion will
contribute to preserve certain ecosystems, communities, habitats or species and hence contribute to the representation of biodiversity.
MPAs are generally designated by one state within its territorial waters, in most instances within national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). There are examples of transnational systems that are managed cooperatively in networks, which is for instance the case in the Mediterranean. Only single MPAs have up to date been designated in areas beyond national jurisdiction as high seas marine protected areas (HS MPA). HS MPAs pose particular
challenges because the acquired expertise is hardly transferrable. However, beside the SOISS MPA there have only been two other examples of HS MPA (Brooks et al. 2014): the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals and a network of seven MPAs in the Northeast Atlantic established in 2010 by OSPAR (OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas).
2.2. The Antarctic Treaty
Antarctica has been governed for over 50 years by the Antarctic Treaty (AT) that has been signed in 1951 and been ratified in 1961. Governance of Antarctica is built on this treaty which is an international agreement to govern Antarctica for scientific and peaceful purpose6. The Treaty was negotiated in (climax) times of the Cold War which has led to such peaceful outcomes. The AT now (2015)7 counts 52 state parties, including 29 Consultative Parties (CP) which are responsible for leading the management of Antarctica. Only the CPs are allowed to participate in decision-making. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is the regime that consists of the follow-on agreements of the Antarctic Treaty signed in 1961 preserving scientific investigation and introducing the ban of military activity on the Antarctic continent. The ATS includes inter alia CCAMLR, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS) and the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol).
2.3. CCAMLR
The CAMLR Convention operates within the ATS as a framework convention on fisheries management in the Southern Ocean. It has wider responsibility for the protection of marine Antarctic ecosystems. It was established in 1982 with the overall objective of conserving the marine life in the Antarctic as multilateral response to concerns that were raised about the increase of krill harvesting and associated effects on Antarctic marine ecosystems. The CCAMLR is an international body comprising 25 Members8; 24 states and the EU as a full member represented by the European Commission. Further eleven countries have acceded to the Convention9. These states are equally legal affected without having signed the
Convention. Nevertheless, they are not allowed to fish in the Convention Area10.
6 AT Preamble 1959
7 http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
8 Members are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, People´s Republic of China (hereafter China), European Union (EU), France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea (hereafter Korea), Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA) and Uruguay.
9 Bulgaria, Canada, Cook Islands, Finland, Greece, Mauritius, Netherlands, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Republic of Panama, Peru and Vanuatu.http://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/about-ccamlr (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
10 http://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/membership (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
The convention area applies from the Antarctic coastline to approximately 45° to 60° south at the Antarctic Polar Front which is a biologically and physically distinct zone where Antarctic waters subside under warmer more saline waters from the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian Ocean.
The Convention Area covers around ten percent of the Earth’s surface and is divided in statistical reporting areas (see Figure 1) Area 48 (Atlantic Ocean sector), Area 58 (Indian Ocean sector) and Area 88 (Pacific Ocean sector). The convention applies to all marine organisms while recognizing the authority of the IWC and CCAS. CCAMLR contracting parties are obliged to acknowledge regulations set by the AT and thus the Environmental
Protocol, even if they are not party to the ATCP (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties).
Beside the Convention as an international treaty itself the key institutional elements – most of them are depicted in Figure 2 – comprise;
Figure 1 Boundaries of the statistical reporting areas (red) under CCAMLR. Source: www.ccamlr.org (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
the Commission (CCAMLR) as a decision-making body, decisions are based on consensus by members of the Commission. The Commission has two subsidiary bodies: a Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance, and a Standing Committee on
Administration and Finance,
a Scientific Committee (SC) that advises the Commission using the best science available,
Conservation Measures (CM) which are binding11
non-binding resolutions
‘CCAMLR's Membership and provisions for international cooperation and collaboration’
that are contribution requirements such as attaining annual meetings of SC and the Commission
a Secretariat based in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, that supports the work of the Commission and SC by facilitating communication between Members, production and circulation of documents, managing scientific data and the Catch Documentation Scheme for reporting and tracking of toothfish catch, monitoring compliance with CM and other decisions.
a number of working groups (WG) established by the SC that meet during the year and assist in formulating scientific advice on key areas (see Figure 2).
CCAMLR’s exceptional role as leader in conservation in the high seas is well known to be proactive and precautious. CCAMLR’s success is based on employing both, the precautionary and the ecosystem approach (Kock 2000, Kock et al. 2007; Constable 2011, Constable et al.
2000). The precautionary approach12 minimizes risks in decision-making by collecting all available data. Potential effect of uncertainties and gaps in the data are determined before making decision. Thus, risks of long-term adverse effects are minimized, rather than delaying decisions until all necessary data are available. Moreover, the convention’s management is based on the ecosystem approach which takes into account whole ecosystems and dependent and related species. Instead of following a traditional single species approach and maximum sustainable yields, CCAMLR tries to account for the complex relationship between organisms and abiotic processes impacting marine Antarctic ecosystems as a whole (Miller 2011:105).
Because regulating ecosystems as a whole is currently not possible due to a lack of knowledge and adequate tools (Kock 2000:9), the approach focuses on regulating human activities such as fishing to decrease adverse effects on the ecosystem. CCAMLR aims to maintain
11 Article IX, 6
12 Article II, 3 (a) to 3 (c)
productive levels of targeted stocks and avoids impacts that are ‘not potentially reversible over two or three decades’13. The ecosystem approach has been defined by the CBD (COP 5) as a “strategy for the integrated management of natural resources that equitably promotes both conservation and utilization”. CCAMLR has been the first global convention that has adopted the ecosystem approach.
CCAMLR can put forward with several milestones and lessons learned. For instance, the bycatch mortality of seabirds has been decreased from approximately 7,000 seabirds in 1997 close to zero in 2013. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the convention area has been reduced from 40,000 tons per year in the 1990s to less than 2,000 tons per year in 2010/2011 (Hain 2014:356). CCAMLR’s Ecosystem Monitoring Program has been an
exemplary of ecosystem-based management. The program is monitoring land-based predators and krill and potentially also revealing ecosystem changes including climate change (Brooks et al. 2014:304).
The combination of conservation and fisheries management under CCAMLR is unusual and unique compared to other regional, intergovernmental arrangements. Normally, the two aspects are separated from each other in single regional marine agreements (e.g. in the
13 Article II, 3 (c)
Figure 2 CCAMLR’s institutional bodies
Northeast Atlantic). Also the composition of fishing and non-fishing members is unique.
Though since 1982, the number of fishing states has increased four-fold (Brooks 2013) and now more than half are interested in harvesting, still they all have the same say in decision- making. CCAMLR’s dual responsibilities are based on one essential principle: Conservation includes ‘rational use’, which allows for harvesting of marine living resources for scientific and commercial purpose under conditions defined by the convention text and agreed
conservation measures14. These requirements include the above described precautionary approach and an ecosystem based management approach, that both have high scientific requirements for decision-making (Constable 2011, Kock 2007, Miller 2011). Uncertainties and data gaps find consideration and new data are consecutively incorporated. Science plays a role of paramount importance under CCAMLR. Obligating Conservation Measures must be formulated, adopted and revised under ‘the basis of the best scientific evidence available’15. Nevertheless, the extent to what scientific evidence is required, is not fully clear (Miller 2011:106).
Fisheries management under CCAMLR results in fishing not being permitted unless MS reach an agreement to fish. It is a reversed burden of proof: areas are closed to commercial fishing rather than open until proven overfished. CCAMLR members notify the intent to fish at the annual CCAMLR meeting and the Commission every year. With unanimous approval fishing activity can be conducted. CCAMLR manages licensed ‘new’, ‘exploratory’,
‘research’ and ‘established’ fisheries. A new fishery is conducted for a species using a particular fishing method in a statistical subarea or division. New fisheries can become
exploratory fisheries when required information to assess stocks and potential impact on other species has been collected. Research and commercial fishing is occurring in so-called small- scale research units (SSRUs), which however can be closed to fishing activities. Fishing activities inside the Convention Area are only allowed for Members that issued licenses to their flagged vessels detailing the specific areas, species and time periods that fishing is authorized. To mitigate adverse effects on stocks and the environment, CCAMLR has
introduced several measures that are legally binding for all vessels licensed in the Convention Area. These include seasonal fishery closures and statutory provisions on gear, fishing
techniques and application standards. Trawling for instance is forbidden in all high seas and exploratory fisheries as part of a precautious management. It further uses a number of
14 Article II, 2
15 Article IX, 1 (f)
compliance systems to monitor fishing activities such as vessel licensing, inspections of vessels and ports, monitoring transshipment, vessel monitoring systems by the use of satellite data and an online catch document scheme for Dissostichus spp. to reduce IUU fishing. The latter is a system that tracks toothfish from the moment harvested along its trade cycle to the point of sale.
2.4. Exploitation of marine living resources in the Antarctic
In the Antarctic exploitation of living resources has been the major human activity with sealing being the first commercial business beginning in the 16th century (Mill 1905), until populations were decimated to stocks not promising sufficient profit. In the late 19th century whaling became a large industry due to a high demand for whale oil used for oil lamps, soap and margarine. Whaling caused large whale species to decline to 2.5% to 6% of initial population sizes (Kock and Shimazu 1994). Only in 1987, the IWC moratorium paused commercial whaling worldwide. Yet, most whale populations are far from being recovered. In the Southern Ocean only Japan continues whaling for scientific purpose. However, the
quantity and quality of the scientific publications by Japan on whales attract criticism from the media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), several researchers and other nations.
Exploitation in the Southern Ocean has led to a decimation of stocks of seals, King penguins, several whale and demersal fish species (Kock 1992, 2000; Constable 2000; Croxall and Nicol 2004), moreover, most fish stocks had been overfished up to less than 10% of initial stocks before the CAMLR Convention came into force in 1982 (Kock 1992) and most fish populations have still not recovered (Marschoff et al. 2012). Additionally, fish stocks have tremendously suffered under IUU fishing in the Convention Area in the last fifty years
(Agnew et al. 2009) which peaked in 1997 with estimated catches of 32,000 tons. However, it has decreased since by over 95% with existing activity in the Indian Ocean sector and the Ross Sea (Miller 2011). Large scale fishing of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) commenced in the 1990s and Antarctic toothfish (D. mawsoni) in the 2000s (Collins et al.
2010). Today16 krill (Euphausia superba), toothfish (Dissostichus spp.)17, and Mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) are in essence the marine living resources that are
harvested in the Southern Ocean and regulated by CCAMLR. Krill remains the largest fishery in terms of tonnage in the Southern Ocean. Yet the value for toothfish is twenty times higher
16 Data retrieved via www.ccamlr.org for the season 2014/2015 (on June 13, 2015)
17 The genus Toothfish can be distinguished in two different recognized species that are both targeted by CCAMLR members.
than for krill and considered of great commercial importance to the profiteers (Brooks 2013).
The large divergence between toothfish and krill in value per ton is inter alia based on the rapidly decreasing quality of krill. Toothfish, sometimes termed ‘white gold’, is profit- yielding due to its stocks, fish size18 and the market price per kilo. In the season 2011/12 catches19 in the Convention Area comprised approximately 14,700 tons of toothfish (Hain 2014). There are large Total Allowable Catches (TAC) with about 3,000 tons in the Ross Sea, statistical Subarea 48.3 but also in the French and Australian EEZ (see Figure 3 and Table 12 and Table 13). Mackerel icefish is solely targeted in two established fisheries (Subarea 48.3 and Heard and McDonald Islands in Division 58.5.2.). Members are licensed to harvest Antarctic Krill in Subareas 48.1 to 48.4, Subarea 48.6 and Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2. They are all established fisheries, despite fishery in Subarea 48.6 which is an exploratory fishery.
However, currently there has only been harvesting in Subareas 48.1 to 48.4. Krill is seen to have great potential with an estimated biomass of almost 390 million tons in the Southern Ocean (Atkinson et al. 2009).
18 At times the toothfish may exceed 100 kg, but usually it is ranging from an average weight of 7-10 kg.
Toothfish may reach about fifty years of age and around 2 meters of length (e.g. Collins et al. 2010)
19 Catches refer to fish, whereas landings are processed catches.
Figure 3 Map indicating the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for toothfish for the 2012/13 season.
Most of these toothfish TACs were set by CCAMLR. Source: http://www.colto.org/toothfish-fisheries/
(retrieved on October 17, 2015)
2.5. Established and proposed CCAMLR MPAs
Table 1 Decisions and activities under CCAMLR since 2002 (Compiled from CCAMLR annual meeting reports 2002–2013).
(Adopted from Brooks 2013).
Year Events
2002 Recognition of WSSD commitment, added agenda item for MPAs20
2005 First CCAMLR MPA Workshop (WS)
2007 CCAMLR Southern Ocean Bioregionalisation WS 2008 Identification of 11 priority areas (Figure 5, 2011 refined into planning
domains, see Figure 5)
2009 Adoption of South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf MPA (CM 91-03) 2009 Committing to a network of Southern Ocean MPAs21
2011 Second CCAMLR MPA WS
2011 Adoption of CM 91-04, a framework for establishing CCAMLR MPAs 2012 Technical WS on developing SCP for MPA22
2013 Special CCAMLR and SC-CAMLR intersessional meeting on MPAs
In the last decade, the international community has put effort in commitments for MPA establishment worldwide. The ATCP agreed to commission the CCAMLR to adopt a network of MPAs in the Southern Ocean in 200223. Within the last ten years Members of CCAMLR have been working on establishing a representative network of MPAs in the Southern Ocean.
In Table 1 the history of major MPA-related decisions and activities under CCAMLR is displayed. General discussions of CCAMLR MPAs began in 199924. In 2002, the ATS and CCAMLR made clear that the objective to establish a worldwide representative network of MPAs by 2012 is an objective for the Southern Ocean25. The workshops in 2005, 2007 and 2012 endorsed the use of MPAs and paved the way for subsequent MPA planning. In 2009, the MPA South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf (SOISS MPA) was adopted by CCAMLR as the first HSMP in the Convention Area and the first entirely HS MPA worldwide.
20 CCAMLR-XXI, para 4.20
21 CCAMLR-XXVIII, para 7.19
22 SCP is an iterative process for identifying candidate sites to protected areas. It is a process with high interplay of policy-part and scientists. Its efficacy can be highly dependent on a high degree of stakeholder participation.
(Margules and Pressey 2000)
23 ATCM XXV, CCAMLR-XXI, para 12 and 88
24 CCAMLR-XVIII, para 4.9.
25 ATCM XXXIV; CEP 7; CCAMLR-XXVIII, para 7.19; SC-CAMLR-XXVIII, paras 3.27–3.28
Figure 5 CCAMLR MPA planning domains. 1: Western Peninsula – South Scotia Arc; 2: North Scotia Arc; 3:
Weddell Sea; 4: Bouvet Maud; 5: Crozet – del Cano; 6: Kerguelen Plateau; 7: Eastern Antarctica; 8: Ross Sea; 9:
Figure 5 CCAMLR priority areas for marine protected areas (MPAs) identification (CCAMLR-XXVII). Numbers refer to area and are not in priority order. 1, Western Antarctic Peninsula; 2, South Orkney Islands; 3, South Sandwich Islands; 4, South Georgia; 5, Maud Rise; 6, eastern Weddell Sea; 7, Prydz Bay; 8, Banzare Bank; 9, Kerguelen; 10, northern Ross Sea/East Antarctica; 11, Ross Sea Shelf. From SC-CAMLR (2008: Annex 4, fig. 12), Source: Miller (2011:115).
In 2011, a general framework for the definition of CCAMLR MPAs was adopted (CM 91-04) which confirmed the commitment by CCAMLR to establish a global network of MPAs26. Priority areas for MPA planning that were set in 2008 (Figure 5) were replaced. In 2011, the planning of MPAs in the CCAMLR area has been divided in nine so-called MPA planning domains27 as displayed in Figure 5. Basis for the planning is the historical involvement of members in the given areas (Brooks 2013:282). The CM 91-04 is an important legally binding framework for the establishment of MPAs under CCAMLR. CM 91-04 is used for ‘the
common actions and requirements for the declaration, administration and management of CCAMLR MPAs’28. Key guidelines that are to be found in the CM 91-04 are, inter alia: the compliance with Articles of the CAMLR Convention and international law such as UNCLOS, requirement to base decision on the best science available, achieving the protection of
representative habitats and ecosystems, biodiversity, key ecosystem species and processes and vulnerable, rare or unique features and habitats, establish reference areas for monitoring anthropogenic induced changes, establish specific objectives, restrictions, spatial boundaries, and a determined period of designation, development of a management, research and
monitoring plan, and the requirement for a review every ten years or as agreed by the Commission. In 2011, several planning groups have presented their planning efforts. The Australian proposal for a network of MPAs in the East Antarctic (EARS MPA)29 and two scenarios from the US and NZ30,31 for a Ross Sea MPA (RS MPA) were tabled to the SC.
After coming to an agreement, the two proponents of the RS MPA came to the decision to join their proposals and tabled a joint redrafted proposal. In the following years the proposals for an RS MPA32 and EARS MPA, as well as a proposal by EU and UK for an Antarctic
Peninsula Ice Shelves MPA were examined by the SC and Commission, and were rejected33. The latter was intended to study ecosystem process and climate change effects under
retreating glaciers. Due to extensive discussion and several Members doubting about the necessity of such an MPA as it is currently well protected by the shelf ice itself34, the EU changed the MPA to a Special Area for Scientific Research. In July 2013 a special
26 CCAMLR-XXX, para 12.38
27 CCAMLR-XXX, para 7.4; SC-CAMLR-XXX, Annex 6, Figure 3
28 CCAMLR-XXX, para 12.38
29 CCAMLR-XXX, para 7.24
30 CCAMLR-XXX, paras 7.10 and 7.11
31 CCAMLR-XXX, para 7.11
32 Here RS MPA stands for the actual Ross Sea MPA proposal. In the past, the term RSMPA has been used to describe a ‘representative system of MPAs’ in the Antarctic (e.g. SC-CAMLR-XXX/11) or East Antarctic
33 SC-CAMLR-XXX, para 5.67; CCAMLR-XXXI, para 7.62
34 SC-CAMLR-XXXI, Annex 6, paras 3.26f.
Figure 6 Established and proposed MPAs in 2012. Source: Cressey 2012a
intercessional meeting (SM) had the key task of discussing MPAs and tabled proposals. At the SM as well as in the other regular meetings unanimous decisions on any MPA have failed repeatedly. Also in October 2014, CCAMLR has met regularly and has neither adopted the EARS MPA nor the RS MPA proposal. In the course of negotiation both proposals have been changed considerably in size and design (see Figure 7), yet despite all compromises,
consensus has not been found. Note, that although the originally proposed size of the
proposed MPAs has been significantly reduced, they would be still very large protected areas.
It can be assumed that in 2015 revised proposals will be tabled and negotiated.
Despite the agreed SOISS MPA, the US and New Zealand Ross Sea MPA (RS MPA) proposal and the East Antarctica Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (EARS MPA) proposal by Australia, France and the EU (see Figure 6), there are currently other planning activities. In 2012, Germany has declared its willingness to take the lead in the development of an MPA in the Weddell Sea (WS MPA). Subsequently, the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) was commissioned by the German government to collect and analyze scientific data and also to identify potential MPAs and conservation objectives in the Weddell Sea. A scientific background paper has been submitted in the meantime and the complete proposal will
presumably be handed in in 2015. In the following the proposals will be presented and difficulties that occurred in the planning process will be discussed.
Figure 7 Infographic demonstrating the changes made in the EARS MPA and RS MPA proposals from 2010 to 2014. Source:
http://antarcticocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/12503-AOA-Infographic-MPA-map_CCAMLR.pdf (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
2.5.1. South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf (SOISS) MPA
The UK SOISS MPA proposal was submitted and comprises an area in the planning domain 1of slightly less than 94,000 km². In this area, that has about the size of Hungary, all fishing activities, the disposal of waste and other dumping is prohibited. The area is further used for a better coordination of scientific research. This protected area is also the first entirely high seas marine reserve (no-take) in the world. At the same time the size of the MPA represents only 0.5% of the CCAMLR Convention Area. The proposal went through the year it was tabled with only little opposition (Brooks 2013:282). The MPA “includes representative examples of two pelagic bioregions […], and incorporates an area of key importance for winter penguin foraging and unique oceanographic frontal systems”35. It is a large continental shelf area of rectangular shape except of the adjacent northern area between the MPA and the South Orkney Islands (see Figure 8). This northern area and the area between MPA and South Orkney Islands are intentionally left out to trade-off interest in marine living resources and possible displacement of human use. The area adjacent to the islands is left out, though it receives a high conservation value according to the results from analysis by the decision- support software MARXAN36 (Figure 8). Despite a high amount of krill and being a major foraging areas of penguins and other seabirds, this areas was left out to bypass interference with Small Scale Management Units (SSMUs37) already managing that area for krill fisheries.
Secondly, the rectangular area in the north has been left out because of member’s interest in exploratory crab fishery. SOISS MPA has been planned with the means of systematic conservation planning (SCP) and bioregionalisation38, followed by manual selection due to expert knowledge considering trade-offs based on fisheries interests and spatial constraints, e.g. aspiring straight borders making it easier to navigate and manage the MPA. The planning area has been intentionally selected because of a high level of available data. This
distinguishes the area from other MPA planning areas and it has been a pilot project for the
35 SC-CCAMLR-XXVII, para 3.16
36 MARXAN is a frequently used and successful tool for supporting the decision on what areas to include in MPAs. It is a is freely available planning software which provides advice to a range of planning challenges such as the overall design of new MPAs and MPA systems, reviewing performance of MPAs, natural resource management and also climate change scenarios.
37 SC-CAMLR XXVIII/14
38 Bioregionalisation is used to describe habitat diversity classifying data based on environmental, ecological and biological attributes. It is a process that may help to simplify and summarize complex relationships between the environment. It is algorithm-based and can be used with relatively little data over a large area and makes the acquisition of additional data redundant. Outputs are so-called ‘bioregions’ that appear as discrete spatial areas with relatively homogenous and predictable properties (species, physical and ecological habitats) that can be used for further analyses and decision-making. It is a process that is already firmly established and repeatedly endorsed under CCAMLR (e.g. SC-CAMLR-XXVI, paragraph 3.75, CCAMLR-XXVII para 7.1)
application of the SCP approach39. Though the MPA as important feeding area for Adélie penguins, MPA effectiveness has not been assessed yet (Martin et al. 2012:12f). In the last meeting in 2014, the five years since establishment of the SOISS MPA were reviewed in a SOISS MPA Report40.
39 SC-CAMLR-XXVII, Annex 4, para 3.49
40 SC-CAMLR-XXXIII, paras 5.51 – 5.76
Figure 8 Spatial boundaries of the SOISS MPA, taken from CM 91-03. Source:
https://www.ccamlr.org/sites/drupal.ccamlr.org/files//91- 03.pdf (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
Figure 8 Output from MARXAN analysis undertaken as part of a systematic conservation planning process for the South Orkney Islands.
Adapted from SC-CAMLR, Annex 4 page 208 Source:
https://www.ccamlr.org/en/system/files/e-sc-xxviii-a4.pdf (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
2.5.2. East Antarctic Representative System (EARS) of MPAs
The overall objective of the EARS MPA is to establish a system of MPAs that in combination represents all biogeographic areas in Eastern Antarctica. The EARS MPA proposal up to now has the longest history of being tabled without being adopted though having sacrificed about half of the originally planned area to be protected (see Figure 7). Australia, later joined by France and the EU, has compiled a proposal based on the best scientific evidence available in a data-poor region41. Though being revised several times in terms of MPA boundaries as well as textual work, the proposal was rejected recurrently. The system of MPAs currently covers around one million square kilometers of the initially proposed surface of approximately 1.63 million km². In the beginning it encompassed seven conservation areas with distinct
biogeographic values which are supposed to be home to characteristic and significant marine organisms (flora and fauna). The proposal was changed and now only encompasses four areas.
The EARS MPA planning group used methods for estimating the shape of the protected area notwithstanding the “inherently large ecological uncertainties prevailing in the region”
(Brooks 2013). Spatial models collected biological, hydrographic, benthic and geophysical
41 SC-CAMLR-XXX, para 5.63
Figure 9 Map of the proposed East Antarctic Marine Protected Area as proposed in 2014. Source:
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0007/146455/varieties/antarctic.jpg (retrieved July 14, 2015)
data. Bioregions were used as a proxy for species richness and community composition. It is providing extensive planning that is mainly based on the bioregionalisation to determine pelagic and benthic environmental types. MPAs have been chosen either for benthic or pelagic or both values. Data layers were treated and clustered with respective software. These
methods and most of the data are based on the efforts of the expert workshop on circumpolar regionalization in 2006 (Grant et al. 2006). Planning is based on the ecological principles of CAR (comprehensiveness, adequacy, representativeness)42 which have intentionally been chosen to plan in data-poor regions. In the process planners would ask the question if a candidate area would add significant value in respect to the described CAR principles.
Hypothetically this concept is successful, if the biodiversity outside the MPA gets degraded and CAR values would be preserved inside.
2.5.3. Ross Sea (RS) MPA
The Ross Sea has been described as one of the last remaining marine ecosystem with minor
42 CAR is a candidate approach for planning of MPAs under CCAMLR (e.g. SC-CAMLR XXIV, para 12-14). It comprises the following principles: Comprehensiveness intends areas to include the full range of ecosystems within and across each bioregion. Adequacy indicates the size of the area is adjusted to ensure protection of ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities. Representative areas shall reflect biotic diversity of ecosystems.
Figure 10 MPA scenarios for a Ross Sea MPA by the United States (blue) and New Zealand (red) as presented to the Scientific Committee in 2011 (based on Delegation of New Zealand 2011 and Delegation of the United States 2011). Source: Brooks (2013:284)
anthropogenic influence despite comparably high fishing activity (Halpern et al. 2008). With one of the most complex and unique Antarctic marine ecosystems it has an evolutionary value comparable with the Galapagos Islands, Hawaii, or Madagascar (Eastman and Ainley 2009).
Two differently planned scenarios for an RS MPA proposal were tabled in 2011 at the SC (see Figure 10). Planning approaches as well as interests differed fundamentally: The US scenario proposed an area that displaces a large area for commercial toothfish fishing. As seen in Figure 10, the area closed to fishing in the US scenario would have been smaller compared to the NZ scenario, though NZ engages in toothfish fishing and the US does not. The main constraint of merging these two proposals to one has been the area of the NZ tagging program (acquiring tag and recapture data), which NZ was interested in maintaining in a continuous and integer manner (Brooks 2013). This area has been deliberately excluded from fishing in the US proposal with the idea to close this very productive area for reference of impacts on the ecosystem by fishing that occurs outside this area.
The two planning groups came to their scenarios using different ways of proceeding. The joint RS MPA proposal based on agreements and political reconciliation. In 2012, the two separate proposals were merged to a joint proposal after reaching compromise about protection
objectives and MPA boundaries. The joint proposal comprised about 2.27 million km² and offered a Special Research Zone (SRZ), a Spawning Protection Zone (SPZ) and the General Protection Zone (GPZ). The latter is considered a no-take zone prohibiting commercial fishing on an area of about 1.6 million km² (Brooks 2013). The SPZ is supposed to be open seasonally during summer fishery. With the intention to have an area where the major target species (toothfish – Dissostichus spp.) may spawn, this area was supposed to be closed in the winter months43. In the SRZ tagging rates would be increased in order to decrease pressure by commercial fishing. Hence, major areas would be regulated by this RS MPA proposal though still excluding productive fishing grounds. In 2013, the size of the MPA was reduced from 2.27 to 1.337 million km² in 2013 (see Figure 7) due to political concessions and criticism brought forward by other member states. The SPZ in the Northwest was annulled and
replaced by a smaller GPZ, as shown in Figure 11. The concept of the SPZ has been removed due to opposition in the SC, because spawning has not been verified and protection would have been only seasonal. The GPZ in the Northeast has been removed and has been reduced around the Scott Seamounts. From 2013 to 2014 only “minor textual suggestions [… as …]
43 SC-CAMLR, IM-I, paras 2.2 to 2.3, 2.8; CCAMLR, SM-II, paras 3.3 to 3.11
largely a procedural step” 44 were undertaken. The changes have been in response to
recommendations from the SC, EMM and other MS raising concerns in bilateral talks. Main reason for the larger changes was a lack of adequate evidence to reason e.g. the closing of large areas to protect spawning toothfish in the SPZ. The joint proposal that is based on bilateral agreement has been declared scientifically sound and was agreed to be forwarded to the Commission as policy matter.
44 http://www.mfat.govt.nz/ross-sea-mpa/tabs/proposal.php (retrieved July 13, 2015)
Figure 11 Boundaries of the RS MPA in 2012 and 2013-SM (left) and in 2013 and 2014 (right). General Protection Zone (A), the Special Research Zone (B), and the Spawning Protection Zone (C). (i), (ii) and (ii) constitute the
General Protection Zone in the current proposal.
2.5.4. Weddell Sea (WS) MPA
The German government commissioned the AWI to collect and analyze scientific data and to identify potential protected areas and conservation measures in the Weddell Sea. The
scientific background paper on the WS MPA planning – a review of all collated data – has already been circulated in the meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2013 and 201445. The proposal will presumably be presented in the regular SC meeting in October 2016 and possibly negotiated at the subsequent CAMLR Commission meeting in the following week.
45 SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/02 http://epic.awi.de/36329/1/BGP_WS_MPA_14_sc-xxxiii-bg-02.pdf (retrieved July 13, 2015)
Figure 12 Planning area for the evaluation of a WS MPA (red shaded area) and the nine planning domains defined by the CCAMLR Planning domain boundaries follow existing CCAMLR statistical reporting subarea boundaries where possible. Source: SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/02
